Westmoreland Association, Inc.
Organized 1917 & Incorporated 1924
Testimony of Walter Mugdan, President, Westmoreland Association, at the N.Y City Council Committee hearing regarding Intro 948-A
November 20, 2025
My name is Walter Mugdan. I serve as president of the Westmoreland Association, a civic association representing the Westmoreland section of Little Neck in northeast Queens. Our community is primarily residential, with mostly single-family homes and a number of multi-family homes.
We are strongly opposed to Intro 948-A (and it’s counterpart 1107-A). It is targeted directly at areas zoned for one- and two-family homes, such as
ours. It would permit short-term rentals of as little as one night. It would allow rental of up to 4 rooms in a 1-family house, and up to 8 rooms in a 2-family house. These rentals could be to unrelated individuals.
Perhaps most concerning of all is the provision of the bill that the owner of the house need not be present during rentals, and the house need not be exclusively or even primarily for the owner’s permanent residential use. This demonstrates that the purpose of the bill is not to make residential home ownership more affordable, but to further the interests of short-term rental companies and investors.
The impact of these overly permissive proposed rules on our community will be deeply undesirable. Homes will become de facto hotels. Houses will be purchased by investors whose only objective will be to maximize rental occupancy and income, rather than by individuals and families who intend to make the community their home.
This bill stands in direct opposition to the strongly stated objectives of the current and future City administration to increase the amount of housing -- and particularly affordable housing -- available in the City. This bill would have the opposite effect: it would take housing stock OUT OF the market for actual residential use and instead convert it to hotel space. And by specifically making such houses attractive and lucrative for use as hotel space instead of residential space, it will further drive up the prices of the remaining homes in the community, thus further undermining efforts to retain and expand affordable housing.
Finally, while this bill focuses on one- and two-family homes, there is every reason to assume that if this bill passes, the proponents will be back soon with efforts to expand these overly permissive rules to apply to higher-density zones. We urge the Committee to reject Intro 948A, along with 1107-A. Thank you.
NOTE: on Dec. 18, 2025 the NYC Council declined to advance Intro 948 from the subcommittee to the full committee during its last meeting of 2025, meaning the bill is now officially dead. It can, of course, be re-submitted in future years; if so, we will again express our opposition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Testimony of Walter Mugdan on behalf of Westmoreland AssociationFor New York City Council Hearing on the “City of Yes” Housing Proposals, October 22, 2024
I am the president of the Westmoreland Association, a civic association representing the Westmoreland area in Little Neck, in northeastern Queens. We are strongly opposed to a number of elements of the City of Yes Housing Opportunity package. Our concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:
We agree there is a housing affordability crisis in NYC. But the City of Yes does not significantly or sufficiently incentivize affordable housing; rather, many of the proposals enable market-rate housing.
We strongly disagree with the stated City of Yes goal of eliminating single-family zoned areas. NYC has one of the lowest percentages of single-family dwellings of any major city in the nation – just 15%, a fraction of the percentage in places like Los Angeles, Minneapolis, or Atlanta. It is appropriate and desirable for a large city to have mixed zoning, ranging from one-family homes to large apartment houses. Having one’s own home remains an important part of the American dream for many, particularly those aspiring to become part of the middle class. Eliminating that opportunity will drive these productive citizens out of our City.
We strongly oppose allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be created in single-family properties. This proposal effectively ends single-family zoning, and approximately doubles the allowable density in those zones; occupants will be at risk from substandard construction and inadequate means of egress. Our community would be a prime target for a considerable amount of ADU development.
We oppose elimination of the requirement for parking spaces with new development. In places like northeastern Queens, where mass transit access is limited, it is unfortunately a virtual necessity to use a car to do most kinds of shopping. On-street parking is already severely limited. The elimination of parking requirements is particularly troublesome in our area.
We oppose the significant increase in the Floor-Area Ratio for one-family zones. The increased bulk does not significantly help address the housing shortage, while substantially damaging the character of neighborhoods and increasing impermeable surface area, thereby increasing stormwater runoff and further straining sewer infrastructure.
We disagree with the amount of residential development that will be allowed above commercial spaces. In our community, commercial buildings along major arteries such as Northern Boulevard typically have two stories above the commercial first floor; we are concerned with the excessive density that would accompany increases to three and four stories above the commercial first floor.
Our community of some 250 single-family homes is entirely within what City of Yes designates as a transit-oriented development (TOD) zone, because of our proximity to the Little Neck Long Island Railroad station. We are opposed to allowing 3-5 story apartments on most corner properties throughout our community. Here in Little Neck, there are appropriate places for high density development just a few blocks away along Northern Blvd. (with good bus service), and also along Little Neck and Marathon Parkways. Indeed, Little Neck Parkway immediately south of the LIRR station already has extensive three-story multi-family housing. The City of Yes ignores such important local realities.
It is important to understand that existing zoning throughout New York City is currently sufficient, if more fully utilized, to provide the number of additional units that the Mayor and the Planning Commission are seeking. It is not necessary to eliminate the relatively small amount of single-family zoned areas in the City to accommodate the legitimate need for additional housing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Written testimony of Walter Mugdan on behalf of Westmoreland Association for July 10, 2024 NYC Council Hearing on “City of Yes” Housing Opportunity Package. Submitted by email on July 8, 2024
I am the president of the Westmoreland Association, a civic association representing the Westmoreland area in Little Neck, in northeastern Queens. We are strongly opposed to many elements within the City of Yes (CoY) Housing Opportunity package.
We agree that more AFFORDABLE housing needs to be built in NYC; but we do not agree that the CoY incentivizes affordable housing.
We agree with efforts to promote the conversion of underutilized office space to residential space.
We disagree with the stated CoY goal of eliminating one-family zoned areas. NYC has one of the lowest percentages of one-family zoned dwellings of any major city in the nation. It is appropriate and desirable for a large city to have mixed zoning, ranging from one-family homes to large apartment houses.
We disagree with the proposal to allow ADUs to be created in any one-family property.
We disagree with the proposal to eliminate the requirement for parking spaces with any new development. In places like northeastern Queens, where mass transit access is limited, and it is virtually necessary to use a car to do most kinds of shopping, the elimination of parking requirements is particularly troublesome.
We disagree with the amount of residential development that will be allowed above commercial spaces. In our community, commercial buildings along major arteries such as Northern Boulevard typically have one to two stories above the commercial first floor; we are concerned with the excessive density that would accompany increases to three and four stories above the commercial first floor.
We urge that these and related elements be removed from the CoY package. We note that existing zoning throughout NYC is currently sufficient, if more fully utilized, to provide the number of additional units that the Mayor and the Planning Commission are seeking. It is not necessary to eliminate the relatively small amount of one-family homes in NYC to accommodate the legitimate need for additional housing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Testimony of Walter Mugdan, President, Westmoreland Association , at the N.Y City Council hearing regarding the “City of Yes” Economic Opportunity Package, April 8, 2024
My name is Walter Mugdan. I serve as president of the Westmoreland Association, a civic representing the Westmoreland section of Little Neck in northeast Queens. Our community is primarily residential, with single- and some multi-family homes. Our Association also covers an active commercial district along a stretch of Northern Boulevard that includes many businesses, and larger apartment houses.
We have serious concerns about several aspects of the City of Yes Economic Opportunity package. In particular, we strongly oppose the provision authorizing corner stores and offices in residential communities such as ours; and the provision authorizing stores or offices on large-scale sites in residential communities.
The whole point of having communities that are zoned residential, with separate nearby areas zoned for commercial uses, is to provide those who live in the residential areas with a more peaceful community environment, and to encourage and facilitate neighborliness among the resident, while providing for reasonable access to shopping, restaurants and other commercial services.
What we do not need in our residential community, which measures about 5 blocks long by 4 blocks wide, are corner stores, and businesses like barber shops, beauty parlors and nail salons, each with several employees, and with signs outside.
Even more damaging to any residential community would be the large scale stores and offices that under this proposal could be built if a developer assembles a 1.5 acre parcel.
The language of these proposals includes purported safeguards, such as requiring the Commission to determine that these otherwise non-conforming uses will “generate a minimum of traffic” and will not “produce objectionable effects” nor “alter the essential character of the neighborhood.”
However, these are all highly subjective standards to be administered by an agency that is explicitly committed to expanding commercial activity into residential neighborhoods.
Because the standards are entirely subjective, it will be nearly impossible for residents to successfully oppose the authorization of such uses in their communities.
Moreover, the way in which these subjective standards are formulated makes them essentially self-fulfilling. Approval of the first such non-conforming use in a given community will likely be determined by the Commission to not violate the standards. The same will be true of the second, and the third. And soon the point will be reached where the essential character of the neighborhood has already been so far altered, that the Commission will determine that further approvals would not significantly further alter the essential character. It will be an example of the law of cumulative impacts: each individual action has only a small impact; but taken together the actions have a profound impact.
Commercial uses belong in, and should be encouraged in, appropriate commercial zones, but not in residential zones. We urge the Council to reject these elements of the Economic Opportunity package. Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Supporting Recognition of Architectural Districts Within New York City
March 25, 2016
Hon. Tony Avella
New York State Senate
38-50 Bell Boulevard Suite
Bayside, NY 11361
RE: Bill Number S6958
Dear Senator Avella:
We write to express our support of the above-referenced bill that would promote the creation and recognition of architectural districts within New York City. The bill was discussed at our general membership meeting on March 21, 2016, and the members present voted nearly unanimously to support the objectives of this legislation.
We recognize that among the motivations for this legislative proposal is the slow pace and highly restrictive nature of historic district designation. This legislation would create an alternative and less stringent pathway through which a community can protect its architectural heritage and maintain the character of their neighborhood.
Thank you for your continued efforts to help us maintain the integrity of our unique residential neighborhoods!
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Walter Mugdan
President
cc: Hon. Edward Braunstein, New York State Assembly
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Opposing Certain Proposed Zoning Rule Changes and Supporting Proposed Resolution Addressed to Federal Aviation Administration
November 21, 2015
Hon. Paul Vallone
New York City Council
42-40 Bell Boulevard, Suite 507
Bayside, NY 11361
Dear Councilman Vallone:
We write to endorse the positions you have recently taken on two issues of considerable local importance – the City Planning Commission’s “Zoning for Quality and Affordability” (ZQA) text amendment proposal; and your resolution calling on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to amend the North Shore helicopter route to extend west to cover Northeast Queens.
These two issues were discussed at length during our General Membership meeting on November 21, 2015. The members voted unanimously to endorse your FAA resolution; and voted unanimously (with one absention) to oppose the ZQA.
As you know, the Westmoreland Association represents the Westmoreland community in the northeast corner of Queens County. Our community is bounded generally by Northern Boulevard on the south; Little Neck Parkway on the west; the Long Island Railroad on the north; and Nassau Road on the east.
ZQA
The ZQA proposal would amend the zoning rules to encourage larger building developments, and would increase the permissible floor-to-area ratio for certain kinds of developments. Although well meaning and intended to address a legitimate concern, namely the lack of affordable housing in the City for senior citizens among others, the ZQA is misguided in its approach. We in the Westmoreland Association, like the members of so many other civic associations throughout the residential areas of Queens and the other Boroughs, have worked for many years to maintain our quality of life and prevent the over-development of local communities. We share the concern of our colleagues across the city that the ZQA proposal could overturn the contextual zoning changes for which we have worked so long. Among other concerns, we disagree with the element of the ZQA that would reduce the number of parking spaces builders would be required to provide. It is already nearly impossible to find on-street parking in much of our City; this proposal will aggravate an unacceptable situation. While the specific provisions of the ZQA proposal will not directly affect the Westmoreland community, we are proud to stand in solidarity with our neighbors who live in the communities that will be affected. We urge that the currently proposed zoning text amendments be rejected.
FAA
We likewise strongly support your resolution calling on the FAA to extend the North Shore helicopter route to include Northeast Queens. The North Shore route was established by the FAA to reduce noise from helicopters flying over residential areas of Nassau and Suffolk, by having them fly over water to the extent possible. The route currently ends at the Queens/Nassau border, but the same need to reduce noise exists with respect to helicopters flying over Northeast Queens. We encourage the City Council to pass this resolution and work directly with the FAA to see that it is implemented.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Walter Mugdan
President
cc: Hon. Melinda Katz, Queens Borough President
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Supporting Proposals Regarding the Department of Buildings
May 27, 2007
Hon. Frank Padavan
New York State Senate
89-39 Gettysburg Street
Bellerose, NY 11426
and
Hon. James F. Brennan
New York State Assembly
416 Seventh Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Re: Legislative Package to Improve Regulation and Enforcement of Development in New York City
Gentlemen:
The Westmoreland Association is a homeowners’ association representing the Westmoreland area of Little Neck, Queens, in New York City. This area is bounded generally by Northern Boulevard on the south, Little Neck Parkway on the west, 39th Road on the north, and Nassau Road on the east.
At the organization’s General Membership meeting of May 21, 2007 the members present voted unanimously to endorse the above-referenced package of legislation. The bills in question include A7745/S5422; A7800/S5223; A7755/S5407; A7746/S4603; A7744/S5410; A7748/S5246; and A7747/S5441.
Our endorsement was qualified only to the extent our members expressed concern that some of these pieces of legislation do not go far enough to make needed changes in the practices of the Department of Buildings. For example, there was consensus that: A7755/S5407 should apply to all violations, not just hazardous violations. Similarly, our members felt that A7746/S4603 should require, not merely allow DOB to refuse to accept filings from those found to have knowingly or negligently submitted false documents (at least for a specified period of time, e.g., four or five years).
Most important, there was a strong consensus among our members that A7745/S5422 should prohibit issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy not only until all fines and penalties are paid, but also until all violative conditions are fully corrected. In our own community, the Department of Buildings last year issued a Certificate of Occupancy for a house that had knowingly been constructed nearly 20% closer to the sideline than permitted by zoning. Payment of a few thousand dollars in fines that may or may not have been imposed for this violation, without requiring the builder to correct the violation, is worse than useless – it actually makes a mockery of the zoning requirements. Despite frequent complaints and requests from the adjacent homeowner, our organization and our New York City Councilman Tony Avella, the Department of Buildings never responded to our complaints about this violation, and never responded to any inquiries about why the Certificate was issued despite our repeated and timely complaints.
Nevertheless, we agree that there are valuable and important elements in the legislative package, which is why we unanimously endorse that package. Among the elements our members thought most useful were the provision in A7745/S5422 empowering Community Boards to request up to 30 audits per year; and the technical assistance grant in A7747/S5441.
We thank you both for sponsoring this package of legislation.
Sincerely,
/s/
Walter Mugdan
President
cc: Hon. Tony Avella, New York City Council
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Testimony of Walter Mugdan, President of the Westmoreland Association, Before the New York City Council Zoning Committee
December 14, 2006
Concerning the Proposed Rezoning of Certain Portions of Little Neck and Douglaston, Queens
My name is Walter Mugdan. I serve as president of the Westmoreland Association, a homeowners association which represent about 335 homes in the Westmoreland section of Little Neck. About 85% of these homes are located within the current New York City R2 zone.
The Westmoreland Association strongly and enthusiastically supports the proposal to rezone all of our R2 areas to the new R2A designation. We have had a lot of concerns with demolition of existing houses and replacement with over-sized houses, often called “McMansions.” We believe the R2A designation will help maintain the character of our neighborhood and limit the severe over-building of recent years in our area and neighboring communities.
I would like to take a moment to explain to you how the Westmoreland Association developed its position on this matter, because I think the process is important in weighing the outcome.
When the R2A rezoning for our area was originally proposed some 21 months ago, we distributed to every house a flyer announcing the proposal, saying it would affect most homes in our area and would be discussed at our March 2005 meeting. That meeting was well attended – nearly 20% of the affected households were represented.
At the meeting we had a presentation by City Councilman Tony Avella. We distributed fact sheets with copies from the New York City Planning Department web site. Additional information was provided by two architects from our community (one a member of our Board of Directors). At the end of the extended discussion, a motion carried unanimously that the Association go on record to support the R2A rezoning.
As always, minutes of the meeting were posted on our web site. We also posted a detailed description of the proposal, with links to the City Planning Department website.
We have discussed the proposal again at each of our six subsequent meetings (May, September and November, 2005, and March, May and September, 2006). At every meeting, I urged individuals to make their views – pro or con – known to the relevant government officials.
At our September `05 meeting I explained that the City Planning Department had asked the civic associations representing the Douglaston-Little Neck area to work together in an effort to provide a consensus position on the rezoning plan. We distributed copies of the Department’s detailed draft map. A motion carried unanimously authorizing me to work with the other civic groups and the Department to further the R2A rezoning proposal.
At the November `05 meeting, I proposed to write to our local newspaper, The Little Neck Ledger, expressing concern over misinformation about the R2A proposal that was then being circulated in another community. The attendees voiced unanimous support, and I wrote that letter.
At our September ‘06 meeting I reported on the hearing held earlier that month by Community Board 11, and stated that I would be testifying at additional hearings on the issue, including this one before the City Council Zoning Committee; all present were again supportive.
I believe it is important for you to understand that our members have had ample and extensive opportunity to learn about, and be heard concerning the R2A rezoning proposal. The issue has been discussed at seven consecutive meetings of the organization, and details are available on our web site along with our meeting minutes. The sense of our membership, as expressed at every meeting, and in two formal votes taken months apart, was unanimous in support of the rezoning plan.
We respectfully request that the City Council Zoning Committee formally endorse this rezoning proposal, which is so important to the protection of our neighborhood.
Thank you.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>